The more you think about this word "tomboy" we use, and how, the more ill-suited it is. It's like some 1930s bigot saying "She's so damn boy-like, we oughta call her Tommy, so's nobody accidentally mistakes her fer a lady! Haw haw haw!"
Is preferring sporty, comfortable clothes, being active, and not dressing or being made up as though you were on your way to a formal banquet all the time, when you're frankly just going to the grocery store... are these actually "masculine" qualities? Not really. One might be able to make the argument that they're more middle-class as opposed to upper class, (also if a middle-class lady trying desperately to look like she is upper class qualifies as "feminine").
It can't JUST be the clothes, or if it is, then we certainly haven't been CONSISTANT about what constitutes "gendered clothing", certainly not these days, but not in the past either. 150 years ago, it was common to dress little boys in actual dresses, full skirt and all. It was considered "child wear". Only later did a new fad of dressing children like tiny adults did that change (and even that had more social-class-level overtones). With the new wave of Gen-X-thru-Millennial generation parents, we've seen some patterns of parents dressing more like their children than the reverse (pyjamas in the daytime, even if you're leaving your house out in public? I don't care for THAT fad at all!)
Sociology gets weird fast the more you pick it apart. Maybe we need a new word for "Tomboy" that fits better? Or to decide we don't need one at all?
Please log in to leave a comment
A. Hit puberty and their Ass and Titties become super fat that their clothes don’t hide their new feminine curves
B. Get hit on non stop by 100s of guys hourly, and not all of them are immature assholes.
C. Finally make the full change and just grow up and grow out of dressing like a boy all day.